The Internal Otic Region of Oromerycids (Artiodactyla, Oromerycidae), Early Camelids (Artiodactyla, Camelidae), and the Vicuña (Artiodactyla, Camelidae), Including Notes on Intraspecific and Subadult Ontogenetic Variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synopsis The taxonomic composition of the suborder Tylopoda is an ongoing debate. Recently, the internal otic region (petrosal and bony labyrinth) has been intensively studied as a source of additional morphological data, but the morphology of this region in extinct tylopods is not well documented. To remedy this, we used µCT scanning to image and describe the petrosal and bony labyrinth of two oromerycids (Protylopus, Eotylopus), four early camelids (Poebrotherium wilsoni, Poebrotherium eximium, Paratylopus primaevus, Stevenscamelus franki), and the living vicuña (Vicugna vicugna). Several early camelid specimens also preserved the ear ossicles (malleus, incus, stapes), enabling us to describe their morphology for the first time. Our sample allows us to not only compare among taxa, but to also examine variation within taxa and during ontogeny. We found that the morphology of the petrosal is far more variable than that of the bony labyrinth, both within and across taxa. There is no notable ontogenetic variation between the juveniles and adults in our sample. Protylopus has an unusual petrosal morphology, and its bony labyrinth is somewhat reminiscent of early dichobunoid artiodactyls. Conversely, Eotylopus has a transitional morphology that seemingly links it to camelids. Poebrotherium wilsoni and Po. eximium do not noticeably differ in their morphology, but there are identifiable differences in Pa. primaevus and S. franki, suggesting that the petrosal of camelids is diagnostic at a genus level. The early camelids were distinct from the vicuña in petrosal, bony labyrinth, and ossicular chain morphology, highlighting the importance of examining basally branching members to resolve evolutionary relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".